Reviews

I admit, my first go-through I wasn't convinced. The plot seemed to rush forward with so much momentum that there wasn't a great deal of character development, and I found the characters themselves utterly obtuse. But, a second watch-through convinced me of what an enjoyable piece of Victorian drama this is -- beginning out with the makings of an unexpected love story (the love comes after marriage, in this case) and turning into a thriller. It won't win any awards but the costuming is gorgeous, the cast is surprisingly good (in spite of any romantic spark between the leads), and it's something I'll watch more than once. Try it, you may be surprised how enjoyable it is.

"I wanted to restore the character as a pure, romantic, dignified and elegant man, one who really does want to find one special woman. And as most women want to find one special man... if you're lucky enough ever to have that in your life, you realize how much better it is than anything else." – Frank Langella

That, essentially, is the crux of this adaptation of Dracula. No, it is not entirely accurate to the book. It is not even somewhat accurate to the book. It barely resembles the book except in the names of the characters (and even those have been changed around) and the fact that the Count is in fact a vampire. And don't get me wrong, I love the book for its subtleties and for providing a fascinating glimpse into a Victorian mindset through its symbolism, but only one Dracula movie stands out for me, and this is it.

It is a shame in some regards that the film has become dated, that it was moved into the Edwardian era instead of remaining Victorian, and did not land a bigger budget, because frankly, without some of the cheesy special effects and 70's style of film making, it would improve greatly. I am well aware of its faults, even known to make intentional fun at them, but it's true… I simply love it.

Prior to taking on this role, Langella was performing the same character on stage on Broadway and creating a sensation. Women simply loved him. I actually knew a woman who used to work in the theater and she said she has never seen such a reaction in a female audience before or since those performances. Langella had such tremendous stage presence that most of the women in the audience were madly in love with him before the end of the first act. The movie gives us a taste of this, because Langella embodies something very few men possess –- natural sensuality. It's never forced, it's never aggressive, it's never overbearing or overtly sexual; it's demure eroticism underneath a cravat. He is one of the most elegant men I have ever seen, the kind where you are consciously aware of him in a room even if he is not the central focus of the camera. It is Langella that makes the film –- without him, for all intensive purposes it would be rubbish, a forgettable foray into the lackluster productions that marked the latter half of the 1970's.

Langella approached the project differently from any actor before or since –- he wanted to make the Count a lonely individual who arrives in England suspecting nothing will change, that he will remain indifferent and amused by mere mortals, and instead is powerfully drawn to a woman. It is love that ensnares him and makes him careless, while at the same time Lucy discovers an intensity, a gentlemanly quality, a charm in him that is absent from her aggressive suitor. There's no sensitivity in Jonathan, no lingering caresses, which is not the case with Dracula. The Count makes it all about her, and that makes all the difference.

It's an unusual film in certain regards since it does make the audience naturally side with him, but also does not shy away from enforcing the view that Dracula is indeed evil. He is responsible for death and insanity. He does represent sin and temptation, but at the same time when his end comes about, we are sad. We are angry. We do not want to see him suffer like that. Not that beautiful, charming, mild-mannered Count who, well, just has this tiny flaw of being a vampire. (It's forgivable... isn't it?)

What I like about this film is that it intentionally appeals to women by respecting their boundaries. It's tasteful. There is a little bit of gore, true, but the overall approach is unique and tinged with romanticism. Dracula never reveals fangs. He never has blood on his mouth. The "love scene" is not explicit and contains nothing to detract from its emotional connection. I saw it for the first time at age seventeen and have seen it hundreds of times in the years since. It is not an award-winning film but it doesn't have to be… it makes me delightfully happy and that's all that matters.

"The Wolves of Willoughby Chase" was one of my favorite books as a child. I spent long winter afternoons curled up in a corner with a cup of hot chocolate, following the adventures of Bonnie and Sylvia as they attempted to thwart the evil Miss Slycarp. The book was able to give the viewer a sense of the dangerous and otherworldly. The evening they spend too long ice-skating on the stream, the black shapes materializing from the darkness, the violent stops the train must make in order to avoid wolves. All these lent the story its subtle charm. Even as an adult, I still enjoy perusing the familiar pages.

Then came the single TV adaptation to have yet been filmed. I cannot tell you how disappointed I was to find my favorite book had been butchered, wrung out, and completely decapitated. Bonnie is spoiled and bratty. Miss Slycarp isn't at all how she's portrayed in the book. Worst of all, they've attempted to make the orphanage more scary by injecting death into it. One of the girls is dragged to her watery death in a scene guaranteed to give any child nightmares. Then there's the awful ending: wolves in the mansion, some ridiculous snowmobile-like coach, and the bloody end of the villains in the wood. They did this book almost as much disgrace as Sullivan did "Jane of Lantern Hill." For heaven's sake, stay away. More wretched drivel have I not seen.